Abstract
A variety of solid tumor cancers contain significant regions of hypoxia, which provide unique challenges for targeting by potent anticancer agents. Bioreductively activatable prodrug conjugates (BAPCs) represent a promising strategy for therapeutic intervention. BAPCs are designed to be biologically inert until they come into contact with low oxygen tension, at which point reductase enzyme mediated cleavage releases the parent anticancer agent in a tumor-specific manner. Phenstatin is a potent inhibitor of tubulin polymerization, mimicking the chemical structure and biological activity of the natural product combretastatin A-4. Synthetic approaches have been established for nitrobenzyl, nitroimidazole, nitrofuranyl, and nitrothienyl prodrugs of phenstatin incorporating nor-methyl, mono-methyl, and gem-dimethyl variants of the attached nitro compounds. A series of BAPCs based on phenstatin have been prepared by chemical synthesis and evaluated against the tubulin-microtubule protein system. In a preliminary study using anaerobic conditions, the gem-dimethyl nitrothiophene and gem-dimethyl nitrofuran analogues were shown to undergo efficient enzymatic cleavage in the presence of NADPH cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase. Each of the eleven BAPCs evaluated in this study demonstrated significantly reduced inhibitory activity against tubulin in comparison to the parent anti-cancer agent phenstatin (IC50 = 1.0 μM). In fact, the majority of the BAPCs (seven of the eleven analogs) were not inhibitors of tubulin polymerization (IC50 > 20 μM), which represents an anticipated (and desirable) attribute for these prodrugs, since they are intended to be biologically inactive prior to enzyme-mediated cleavage to release phenstatin.
Keywords: Bioreductively Activatable Prodrug Conjugates (BAPCs), Phenstatin, Prodrug Synthesis, Tumor-Associated Hypoxia, Inhibitors of Tubulin Polymerization
Graphical abstract

Tumor-associated vasculature has emerged as a promising target for anti-cancer therapies due to its marked differences from vasculature feeding healthy tissue.1–10 Vasculature associated with healthy tissue forms a well-organized delivery network for oxygen and nutrients to cells.1–10 In contrast, tumor-associated vasculature is forced to develop rapidly to meet the enhanced demand for significant amounts of nutrients and oxygen required by tumors.1–10 The rapid growth of tumor-associated vasculature results in compromised structural integrity, which is characterized by weakened vessel walls, increased interstitial pressure, blind ends, and bulges.1–10 Tumor-associated vasculature is generated rapidly, leading to groups of vessels spaced far apart from each other, and this results in regions of hypoxia that develop when this distance is greater than the diffusion distance of oxygen.1–10
One promising therapeutic option for targeting tumor-associated vasculature involves treatment with vascular targeting agents (VTAs), which include angiogenesis-inhibiting agents (AIAs) and vascular disrupting agents (VDAs).1–10 AIAs, which represent a fairly well investigated therapeutic strategy, act by inhibiting angiogenesis, the formation of new tumor-associated vasculature, while leaving existing vessels intact.4,11–12 Inhibition of angiogenesis limits tumor growth and also leads to increased blood flow in the remaining vasculature, allowing for increased delivery of chemotherapy and potentially enhanced tumor damage from radiotherapy to an otherwise difficult therapeutic target due to hypoxia.4,11–12 VDAs impact tumor vasculature from a mechanistic approach that is distinct from AIAs. One subset of VDAs is comprised of small-molecule inhibitors of tubulin polymerization that target existing tumor-associated vasculature by causing rapid morphology changes (flat to round) of the endothelial cells lining these vessels.1–10 This leads to irreversible vessel damage and tumor necrosis.1–10
A representative clinically relevant small-molecule VDA that disrupts microtubule formation is the natural product combretastatin A-4 (CA4) (Figure 1). First isolated from the African bush willow tree Combretum caffrum Kuntze by the Pettit group, CA4 is a potent inhibitor of tubulin polymerization, functioning through a binding interaction at the colchicine site on tubulin.13–17 Its corresponding water-soluble phosphate prodrug salt [combretastatin A-4P (CA4P)] has reached advanced clinical trials as a promising VDA.18–22 However, no small-molecule VDA has yet been approved by the FDA.
Figure 1.
Colchicine, Phenstatin, and Combretastatin Natural Products and their Corresponding Phosphate Salts
Phenstatin, originally synthesized by the Pettit group in 1998, is another potent inhibitor of tubulin polymerization with pronounced anti-cancer activity against human cancer cell lines (Figure 1).23–24 Phenstatin was discovered serendipitously by the Pettit group during an attempt to prepare a CA4 analogue bearing an epoxide moiety as a replacement for the ethylene bridge.23 The ketone functionality of phenstatin was the surprising result of a Jacobsen epoxidation reaction intended to form an epoxide from the corresponding olefin.23 Phenstatin mirrors the biological mechanism of action of CA4, disrupting microtubule assembly through a binding interaction with the colchicine site on tubulin.24 Phenstatin and its corresponding water-soluble phosphate salt prodrug counterpart demonstrate pronounced cytotoxicity against human cancer cell lines.24 While hydroxyphenstatin, the diol analog of phenstatin, displays potent inhibition of tubulin polymerization, its diphosphate salt analog is less active against in vitro cancer cell lines and as an inhibitor of tubulin polymerization than its phenstatin phosphate counterpart.24
Solid tumors represent inherently challenging therapeutic targets due, in part, to the significant differences between vasculature feeding healthy tissue versus tumor-associated vasculature, which is a contributing factor to the profound regions of hypoxia that often characterize tumors.3,8,25–36 A combination of blind ends, leaky vessel walls, occlusions, and kinked vessels, along with the increased average distance between capillaries, leads to hypoxic regions where many common radiotherapies and chemotherapeutic options are less effective.8,25–36 The challenges created by hypoxia and large diffusion distances offer a unique opportunity for targeted therapeutic intervention.8,25 Bioreductively activatable prodrug conjugates (BAPCs) represent a possible hypoxia-activated treatment method.8,25 BAPCs are designed to be activated by reductase enzymes, such as NADPH cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase (POR), in regions of hypoxia in the tumor microenvironment, releasing a potent anti-cancer agent in a tumor-specific manner.8,25
A series of BAPCs utilizing CA4 as the parent anticancer agent and incorporating nor-, mono-, and gem-dimethyl nitrothiophene triggers was reported in 2006 by Davis and coworkers.37–38 The CA4-BAPC bearing the gem-dimethyl nitrothiophene trigger proved to be the most active of the trio, demonstrating the greatest resistance to cleavage under normoxic conditions in vitro, in effect displaying a high selectivity for low-oxygen tumor environments.37 While the nor-methyl nitrothiophene BAPC was only activated at very low oxygen concentrations (<0.01% O2), the bioreductive triggers for mono-methyl and gem-dimethyl BAPCs were cleaved over a greater range of oxygen concentrations.37 The gem-dimethyl CA4-BAPC was significantly more effective in hypoxic environments in vitro compared to the nor- and mono-methyl CA4-BAPCs, releasing approximately 50% CA4 at 0.5% O2 with the aid of POR.37
The mechanism of cleavage (under hypoxia) for the nitrothiophene trigger begins with a one electron reductase such as POR reducing the nitro group on the trigger (Figure 2).37 Once the nitro group on the trigger has been reduced, an electron cascade through the thiophene ring leads to trigger detachment, releasing the active VDA (CA4 in this example).37 In comparison, under normal oxygen tension, the species obtained after the initial one-electron reduction is simply re-oxidized (by molecular oxygen) and thus does not lead to cleavage.37
Figure 2.
Gem-dimethyl Nitrothienyl Trigger Release from CA437
Although no BAPC has yet been approved by the FDA, two BAPCs that have reached advanced clinical trials are TH-302 and PR-104. TH-302 (from Threshold Pharmaceuticals) is a 2-nitroimidazole based BAPC attached to the DNA alkylating agent bromo-isophosphoramide (Figure 3).39,40 The prodrug is activated by one electron reductases such as POR, reducing the nitro group on the nitroimidazole trigger in a similar mechanistic pathway to the nitrothienyl trigger cleavage.8 Highly effective in in vitro studies and early in vivo studies in mice with hypoxia cytotoxicity ratios (HCR) as high as 600, TH-302 has advanced to Phase III clinical trials after successful Phase I and II studies, although the results of the first Phase III trial were not statistically significant.41–43 PR-104 (Figure 3), synthesized and biologically evaluated by Wilson et al. at the University of Auckland, is a nitroaromatic preprodrug of PR-104A, eventually being reduced to the active forms PR104H and PR-104M.8,44–46 The cytotoxicity of PR-104M derives from its ability to form interstrand DNA crosslinks.8 PR-104 was taken into Phase I and II clinical trials, yielding promising results in Phase I trials but stalled at Phase II due to dose-limiting toxicity and overall efficacy issues.8,47,48
Figure 3.
TH-302, PR104, PR104A, PR104H, and PR104M8
Intrigued by the concept of targeting tumor hypoxia with BAPCs, a series of such prodrugs were prepared by chemical synthesis based on the unique tubulin-active anticancer agent, phenstatin. Utilizing a combination of synthetic pathways previously described in the literature along with our modifications designed to improve yield and reaction efficiency, a selected subset of nor-, mono-, and gem-dimethyl nitrothiophene, nitrobenzyl, nitroimidazole, and nitrofuran triggers were synthesized and linked to phenstatin.37–38 Preliminary biological assessment of these phenstatin BAPCs evaluated their ability to inhibit tubulin polymerization, and a subset were evaluated for their suitability as substrates for enzymatic-mediated cleavage to release the parent anticancer agent, phenstatin.
While each of the phenstatin-based BAPCs represents a new chemical entity, phenstatin (Scheme 1) and the prodrug triggers were synthesized utilizing methodology previously described.23,49 Isovanillin was protected as its corresponding tert-butyldimethylsilyl ether, aldehyde 2. 23,49 Halogen-metal exchange of aryl bromide 3, followed by the introduction of aldehyde 2, afforded the secondary alcohol 4, which, upon oxidation, generated phenstatin precursor 5.23,49 Removal of the TBS protecting group yielded phenstatin 6.23,49
Scheme 1.
The nor-methyl nitrothiophene trigger 8 was generated in excellent yield through reduction of aldehyde 7, as reported by Davis et al. (Scheme 2).37 The Davis route to the gem-dimethyl nitrothiophene trigger 11 proved less effective in our hands, generating the product but only in low yield. This motivated us to consider a modified synthetic methodology toward the gem-dimethyl trigger 11. Methylation conditions described by Reetz et al. provided an improved synthetic route that generated both mono- and gem-dimethyl nitrothiophene triggers from aldehyde 7 in good yield.50 Mono-methyl trigger 9 was synthesized through methylation of aldehyde 7 with methyllithium and titanium tetrachloride.50 Oxidation with Dess-Martin periodinane (DMP) generated ketone 10 in high yield, and further methylation of ketone 10 furnished the gem-dimethyl trigger 11 (Scheme 2).50,51 Further investigation determined that trimethyl aluminum was a more effective methylation agent for the conversion of aldehyde 7 and ketone 10 to their corresponding mono- and gem- triggers 9 and 11, respectively, in comparison to the methyllithium/titanium tetrachloride method (see Supplementary data).
Scheme 2.
A Mitsunobu reaction was utilized to conjugate the bioreductive triggers to phenstatin to generate the requisite BAPCs (Scheme 3).37,49,52,53 Depending on the reactivity of the bioreductive triggers involved in each reaction, a combination of either diethyl azodicarboxylate (DEAD), diisopropyl azodicarboxylate (DIAD), or 1,1′-(azodicarbonyl)dipiperidine (ADDP) and triphenylphosphine or tributylphosphine were employed to generate the ether linkage.37,52,53 Synthesis of the phenstatin nor-methyl nitrothiophene BAPC 12 and its corresponding mono-methyl BAPC 13 involved the reaction of phenstatin with nitrothiophene 8 (or 9), DIAD, and triphenylphosphine.37,49 The phenstatin gem-dimethyl BAPC 14 was synthesized in a Mitsunobu reaction utilizing ADDP, tributylphosphine, phenstatin, and nitrothiophene trigger 11.37,49
Scheme 3.
The phenstatin nitrobenzyl BAPCs were synthesized in a similar fashion to the phenstatin nitrothiophene BAPCs, utilizing a Mitsunobu reaction to generate the critical ether linkage (Scheme S1, Supplementary data).37,49,52,53 Synthesis of the nor-methyl nitrobenzyl BAPC 20 and the mono-methyl nitrobenzyl BAPC 21 was achieved through the reaction of phenstatin, DIAD, and triphenylphosphine, with the appropriate trigger (4-nitrobenzyl alcohol 19 or mono-methyl trigger 16, respectively). 37,49 A reaction of tributylphosphine, ADDP, phenstatin, and the gem-dimethyl nitrobenzyl trigger 18 furnished the gem-dimethyl nitrobenzyl BAPC 22.37,49 The synthetic route reported by Reetz and co-workers was utilized for the synthesis of the nitrobenzyl triggers 16 and 18 (Scheme S2, Supplementary data).50
The nitroimidazole phenstatin BAPCs (Scheme S3, Supplementary data) were generated through a Mitsunobu reaction analogous to the chemistry described previously for the nitrobenzyl and nitrothiophene BAPCs.37,49,51–54 The nor-methyl nitroimidazole BAPC 31 was synthesized utilizing a Mitsunobu reaction with phenstatin, DIAD, triphenylphosphine, and nitroimidazole 28.37,49 Triphenylphosphine, DIAD, phenstatin, and mono-methyl nitroimidazole 30 reacted to yield the mono-methyl nitroimidazole BAPC 32.37,49 The synthesis of the nitroimidazole triggers followed a route developed by Conway et al. (Scheme S4, Supplementary data).51,54,64 Despite several attempts directed towards methylation of the nitroimidazole ketone, the gem-dimethyl nitroimidazole trigger was not successfully synthesized in our hands (Scheme S5, Supplementary data).50,51,55–63
The synthetic route for the nitrofuran bioreductive triggers (Scheme 4) was based on the new route to the nitrothiophene triggers shown in Scheme 2.37,50,51,64 The nor-methyl nitrofuran trigger 34 was generated through the reduction of aldehyde 33.37 Aldehyde 33 was methylated to yield mono-methyl nitrofuran trigger 35.50,51 The synthesis of the gem-dimethyl nitrofuran trigger 37 was achieved in high yield by oxidation of mono-methyl trigger 35 to its corresponding ketone 36, followed by methylation to generate the gem-dimethyl nitrofuran trigger 37.50,51
Scheme 4.
Mitsunobu chemistry was once again employed to form the requisite ether linkage between the nitrofuran triggers and phenstatin, generating the nitrofuran BAPCs (Scheme 5).37,49,54,64 The nor-methyl nitrofuran BAPC 38 and the mono-methyl nitrofuran BAPC 39 were generated through the reaction of phenstatin, DIAD, and triphenylphosphine with the appropriate trigger (nor-methyl nitrofuran 34 or mono-methyl nitrofuran 35, respectively).37,49 The gem-dimethyl nitrofuran BAPC 40 was likewise synthesized via a Mitsunobu reaction with nitrofuran 37.37,49
Scheme 5.
The phenstatin BAPCs (Figure 4), as well as phenstatin, were evaluated for their ability to inhibit tubulin polymerization and compete for the colchicine binding site (Table 1). In addition to the mono-methyl nitrothiophene BAPC 13 and the gem-dimethyl nitrofuran BAPC 40, the entire nitrobenzyl series (20,21,22) and the nitroimidazole series (31,32) all proved to be inactive (IC50 >20 μM) as inhibitors of tubulin polymerization. This is an important and desirable attribute for these phenstatin-based BAPCs, since they are designed to be biologically inactive until enzyme-mediated prodrug cleavage releases the active anticancer agent (phenstatin), which itself is a potent inhibitor of tubulin polymerization (IC50 = 1.0 μM). The other four BAPCs (12, 14, 38, 39) evaluated in this study demonstrated significantly reduced (IC50 range of 9–16 μM) inhibition of tubulin polymerization, in comparison to phenstatin. The limited activity of these four BAPCs might be attributed to partial trigger cleavage under the assay conditions, leading to generation of the tubulin-active parent anticancer agent phenstatin. This hypothesis of partial cleavage has not been confirmed or further investigated to date.
Figure 4.
Phenstatin BAPCs Prepared by Chemical Synthesis
Table 1.
Inhibition of Tubulin Polymerization and Percent Inhibition of Colchicine Binding
| Compd | Inhibition of Tubulin Assembly IC50 | Inhibition of Colchicine Binding % Inhibition μM ±SD |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| (μM)±SD | 5 μM | |
|
42 CA4 |
0.73 ± 0.04 | 98 ± 0.1 |
|
6 Phenstatin |
1.0 ± 0.2a | 85 ± 2 |
| 12 | 16 ± 0.6 | 19 ± 2 |
| 13 | >20 | 15 ± 0.09 |
| 14 | 9.0 ± 1 | 16 ± 3 |
| 20 | >20 | 11 ± 4 |
| 21 | >20 | 5.8 ± 5 |
| 22 | >20 | 8.8 ± 5 |
| 31 | >20 | 7.1 ± 0.01 |
| 32 | >20 | 11 ± 5 |
| 38 | 15 ± 1 | 17 ± 0.01 |
| 39 | 12 ± 0.5 | 16 ± 3 |
| 40 | >20 | 13 ± 5 |
Data from reference 23
Based on the pioneering work by Davis and co-workers with CA4-BAPCs, which demonstrated the potency of the gem-dimethyl variant (in comparison to the corresponding nor- and mono-methyl analogues), the three phenstatin-based gem-dimethyl BAPCs prepared in this study were subjected to further initial evaluation. A stability study carried out in pH 7.4 potassium phosphate buffer solution on the three gem-dimethyl trigger BAPCs (14, 22, 40) demonstrated promising results, with each BAPC remaining structurally intact over a 24 h period with no observable (by HPLC analysis) cleavage or degradation. These same three BAPCs (14, 22, 40) were treated (in separate experiments) with NADPH cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase (POR) to evaluate them as substrates for this enzyme under anoxic conditions. The gem-dimethyl furan and thiophene compounds (14 and 40, respectively) were fully cleaved over the course of 24 h, while, interestingly, the gem-dimethyl benzyl compound 22 did not undergo cleavage in the 24 h assay (Table 2). The reduction potential for the nitrobenzyl trigger is less than the reduction potential (less electron-philic) than that of the nitrofuran, nitroimidazole, and nitrothiophene triggers, possibly explaining its resistance to cleavage by POR under these assay conditions.64
Table 2.
Bioreductive Trigger Hydrolysis (Untreated) and Cleavage of POR-Treated BAPCs
| Compd | Hydrolysis Percentage in pH 7.4 Phosphate Buffer for 24 h | Cleavage Percentage of POR-treated for 24 ha |
|---|---|---|
| 14 | 0 | 100 |
| 22 | 0 | 0 |
| 40 | 0 | 100 |
anoxic conditions
In conclusion, a series of eleven promising phenstatin-based BAPCs were prepared by chemical synthesis and had little or no activity as inhibitors of tubulin assembly or binding of colchicine to tubulin, in comparison to the parent anticancer agent phenstatin, a potent tubulin inhibitor. In preliminary studies, the three phenstatin-based gem-dimethyl BAPCs (14, 22, 40) demonstrated aqueous solution stability (over 24 h), and two of the BAPCs (14, 40) were suitable substrates for POR. These BAPCs have the potential to be therapeutic agents that target hypoxic tumor cells.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT, Grant No. RP140399 to K.G.P. and M.L.T.), the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (Grant No. 5R01CA140674 to K.G.P. and M.L.T.), and Mateon Therapeutics, Inc. (grant to K.G.P. and M.L.T.) for their financial support of this project. The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors also thank Dr. Michelle Nemec (Director) for the use of the shared Molecular Biosciences Center at Baylor University and Dr. Alejandro Ramirez (Mass Spectrometry Core Facility, Baylor University). The authors are grateful to Ms. Taylor Deushane, Mr. Bunnarack Kuch, Mr. Raj Patel, Mr. Matthew Parsons, and Ms. Evelyn Le for their contributions to the synthesis of advanced intermediates.
ABBREVIATIONS USED
- BAPC
bioreductively activatable prodrug conjugate
- CA1
combretastatin A-1
- CA4
combretastatin A-4
- Et3N
triethylamine
- HPLC
high performance liquid chromatography
- HRMS
high resolution mass spectrometry
- MeOH
methanol
- NaBH4
sodium borohydride
- TLC
thin layer chromatography
- THF
tetrahydrofuran
- EtOAc
ethyl acetate
- POR
NADPH cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase
- DMP
Dess-Martin periodinane
- DEAD
diethylazodicarboxylate
- DIAD
diisopropyl azodicarboxylate
- ADDP
1,1′-(azodicarbonyl)dipiperidine
Footnotes
Supplementary data: Experimental procedures (synthesis, colchicine binding assay, inhibition of tubulin polymerization, and POR cleavage assay) and characterization data (1H NMR, 13C NMR, HPLC, HRMS) for compounds associated with this article can be found in the online Supplementary data file.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
References
- 1.Mason RP, Zhao D, Liu L, Trawick ML, Pinney KG. Integr Biol. 2011;3:375–387. doi: 10.1039/c0ib00135j. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Siemann DW. Cancer Treat Rev. 2011;37(1):63–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2010.05.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Siemann DW, Horsman MR. Pharmacol Ther. 2015;153:107–124. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2015.06.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Patterson DM, Rustin GSJ. Clin Oncol. 2007;19:443–456. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2007.03.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kingston DGI. J Nat Prod. 2009;72:507–515. doi: 10.1021/np800568j. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Pattillo CB. Drugs of the Future. 2011;36:385–390. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Perez-Perez MJ, Priego EM, Bueno O, Martins MS, Canela MD, Liekins S. [accessed 10 Sept 2016];J Med Chem [Online early access] doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00463. Pubished Online: June 27, 2016. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00463. [DOI]
- 8.Philips RM. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2016;77:441–457. doi: 10.1007/s00280-015-2920-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Brown JM, Wilson WR. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2004;4:427–447. doi: 10.1038/nrc1367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Tozer GM, Kanthou C, Baguley BC. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2005;5:423–435. doi: 10.1038/nrc1628. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ferrara N, Kerbel RS. Nature. 2005;438:967–974. doi: 10.1038/nature04483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hicklin DJ, Ellis LM. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1011–1027. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.06.081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Singh SB, Boyd MR, Hamel E, Pettit RK, Schmidt JM, Hogan F, Pettit GR. J Med Chem. 1995;38:1666–1672. doi: 10.1021/jm00010a011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Pettit GR, Cragg GM, Singh SB. J Nat Prod. 1987;50:386–391. doi: 10.1021/np50051a008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Pettit GR, Singh SB, Niven ML, Hamel E, Schmidt JM. J Nat Prod. 1987;50:119–131. doi: 10.1021/np50049a016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Pettit GR, Singh SB, Hamel E, Lin CM, Alberts DS, Garcia-Kendall G. Experientia. 1989;45:209–211. doi: 10.1007/BF01954881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Lin CM, Singh SB, Chu PS, Dempcy RO, Schmidt JM, Pettit GR, Hamel E. Molecular Pharmacology. 1988;34:200–208. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Pettit GR, Lippert JW., III Anti-Cancer Drug Design. 2000;15:203–216. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Siemann DW, Shi W. Anticancer Res. 2008:2027–2031. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Nathan P, Zweifel M, Padhani AR, Koh D, Ng M, Collins DJ, Harris A, Carden C, Smythe J, Fisher N, Taylor NJ, Stirling JJ, Lu S, Leach MO, Rustin GJS, Judson I. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:3428–3439. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Rhodes MR, Herald DL, Chaplin DJ, Stratford MRL, Hamel E, Pettit RK, Chapuis JC, Oliva D, Pettit GR. Anti-Cancer Drug Design. 1998;13:981–993. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Pettit GR, Temple C, Jr, Narayanan VL, Varma R, Simpson MJ, Boyd MR, Rener GA, Bansal N. Anticancer Drug Des. 1995;10:299–309. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Pettit GR, Toki B, Herald DL, Verdier-Pinard P, Boyd MR, Hamel E, Pettit RK. J Med Chem. 1998;41:1688–1695. doi: 10.1021/jm970644q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Pettit GR, Grealish MP, Herald DL, Boyd MR, Hamel E, Pettit RK. J Med Chem. 2000;43:2731–2737. doi: 10.1021/jm000045a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Wilson WR, Hay MP. Nature. 2011;11:393–410. doi: 10.1038/nrc3064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Huxham LA, Kyle AH, Baker JHE, McNicol KL, Minchinton AI. Microvascular Research. 2008;75:247–255. doi: 10.1016/j.mvr.2007.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Weiss GJ, Infante JR, Chiorean EG, Borad MJ, Bendell JC, Molina JR, Tibes R, Ramanathan RK, Lewandowski K, Jones SF, Lacouture ME, Langmuir VK, Lee H, Kroll S, Burris HA., III Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:2997–3004. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-3425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Chaplin DJ, Olive PL, Durand RE. Cancer Res. 1987;47(2):597–601. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Brown JM. Br J Radiol. 1979;52(620):650–656. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-52-620-650. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Brown JM. Methods Enzymol. 2007;435:297–321. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(07)35015-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Horsman MR, Mortensen LS, Petersen JB, Busk M, Overgaard J. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012;9(12):674–687. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Cazares-Korner C, Pires IM, Swallow ID, Grayer SC, O’Connor LJ, Olcina MM, Christlieb M, Conway SJ, Hammond EM. ACS Chem Biol. 2013;8:1451–1459. doi: 10.1021/cb4001537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Denny WA. Lancet Oncol. 2000;1:25–29. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(00)00006-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Denny WA. Eur J Med Chem. 2001;36:577–595. doi: 10.1016/s0223-5234(01)01253-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Jaffar M, Williams KJ, Stratford IJ. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 2001;53:217–228. doi: 10.1016/s0169-409x(01)00228-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Volpato M, Abou-Zeid N, Tanner RW, Glasbrook LT, Taylor J, Stratford I, Loadman PM, Jaffar M, Philips RM. Mol Cancer Ther. 2007;6:3122–3130. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-07-0519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Thomson P, Naylor MA, Everett SA, Stratford MRL, Lewis G, Hill S, Patel KB, Wardman P, Davis P. Mol Cancer Ther. 2006;5:2886–2894. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Davis P, Naylor MA, Thomson P, Everett SA, Stratford MRL, Wardman P. Bioreductively-Activated Prodrugs. PCT/GB2004/001330. International Patent. 2004 Oct 7;
- 39.Duan J, Jiao H, Kaizerman J, Stanton T, Evans JW, Lan L, Lorente G, Banica M, Jung D, Wang J, Ma J, Li X, Yang Z, Hoffman RM, Ammons WS, Hart CP, Matteucci M. J Med Chem. 2008;51:2412–2420. doi: 10.1021/jm701028q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Meng F, Evans JW, Bhupathi D, Banica M, Lan L, Lorente G, Duan J, Cai X, Mowday AM, Guise CP, Maroz A, Anderson RF, Patterson AV, Stachelek PM, Glazer PM, Matteucci MD, Hart CP. Mol Cancer Ther. 2012;11:740–751. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-11-0634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.EMD Serono; Threshold Pharmaceuticals. Clinical Trial Testing TH-302 in Combination with Gemcitabine in Previously Untreated Subjects with Metastatic or Locally Advanced Unresectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (MAESTRO) [12 Sept. 2016];ClinicalTrials.gov. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01746979?term=TH-302&no_unk=Y&rank=10.
- 42.Threshold Pharmaceuticals. A Phase 2 Biomarker Enriched Study of TH-302 in Subjects with Advanced Melanoma. [12 Sept 2016];ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01864538?term=TH-302&no_unk=Y&rank=8.
- 43.Threshold Pharmaceuticals. A Trial of TH-302 in Combination with Doxorubicin Versus Doxorubicin Alone to Treat Patients with Locally Advanced Unresectable or Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma. [12 Sept 2016];ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01440088?term=TH+302&rank=6.
- 44.Hicks KO, Myint H, Patterson AV, Pruijn FB, Siim BG, Patel K, Wilson WR. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys. 2007;69:560–571. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.05.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Patterson AV, Ferry DM, Edmunds SJ, Gu Y, Singleton RS, Patel K, Pullen SM, Hicks KO, Syddall SP, Atwell GJ, Yang S, Denny WA, Wilson WR. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:3922–3932. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-0478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Guise CP, Mowday AM, Amir A, Yuan R, Lin W, Wu D, Smaill JB, Patterson AV, Ding K. Chinese Journal of Cancer. 2014;32:80–86. doi: 10.5732/cjc.012.10285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Proacta, Incorportated. PR-104 and Docetaxel or Gemcitabine in Treating Patients with Solid Tumors. [12 Sept 2016];ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00459836?term=PR+104&rank=5.
- 48.Proacta, Incorporated. Randomized, Multi-center, Open-label, Study of PR104 Versus PR104/Docetaxel in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) [12 Sept 2016];ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00862134?term=PR+104&rank=4.
- 49.Nguyen B. PhD Dissertation. Baylor University; Waco, TX: 2010. Design and Synthesis of Combretastatin A-1 Analogs, Small Molecule Vascular Disrupting Agents, and Bioreductive Triggers as Potential Therapeutic Agents for the Treatment of Cancer. [Google Scholar]
- 50.Reetz MT, Kyung SH, Hüllmann M. Tetrahedron. 1986;42:2931–2935. [Google Scholar]
- 51.O’Connor LJ, Cazares-Korner C, Saha J, Evans CNG, Stratford MRL, Hammond EM, Conway SJ. Org Chem Front. 2015;2:1026–1029. [Google Scholar]
- 52.Swamy KCK, Kumar NNB, Balaraman E, Kumar KVPP. Chem Rev. 2009;109:2551–2651. doi: 10.1021/cr800278z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Zhirov AM, Aksenov AV. Russian Chemical Reviews. 2014;83:502–522. [Google Scholar]
- 54.Matteucci M, Duan J, Jiao H, Kaizerman J, Ammons S. Phosphoramidite Alkylator Prodrugs. PCT/US2006/025881. International Patent. 2006 Jun 29;
- 55.Long W, Liu P. J Radiat Res. 2010;51:563–572. doi: 10.1269/jrr.10053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Adams GE, Clarke ED, Gray P, Jacobs RS, Stratford IJ, Wardman P, Watts ME, Patrick J, Wallace RG, Smithen CE. Int J Radiat Biol And Related Stud Phys Chem Med. 1979;35:151–160. doi: 10.1080/09553007914550161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Adams GE, Clarke ED, Flockhart IR, Jacobs RS, Sehmi DS, Stratford IJ, Wardman P, Watts ME, Parrick J, Wallace RG, Smithen CE. Int J Radiat Biol And Related Stud Phys Chem Med. 1979;35:133–50. doi: 10.1080/09553007914550151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Assandri A, Perazzi A, Zerilli LF, Ferrari P, Martinelli E. Drug Metabolism and Disposition. 1978;6:109–113. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Cavalleri B, Volpe V, Arioli V, Pizzocheri F, Diena A. J Med Chem. 1978;21:781–784. doi: 10.1021/jm00206a012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Goldstein BP, Vidal-Plana RR, Cavalleri B, Zerilli L, Carniti; G, Silvestri LG. Journal of General Microbiology. 1977;100:283–298. doi: 10.1099/00221287-100-2-283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Cavalleri B, Volpe G. α,α,1-Trimethyl-2-Nitroimidazolemethanol Esters. DE19772700346 19770105. International Patent. 1977 Jul 28;
- 62.Assandri A, Lancini G, Volpe G, Cavalleri B. 5-[(1-Hydroxy-1-methyl)ethyl]-1-methyl-2-nitroimidazole. DE19762600538 19760108. International Patent. 1976 Jul 22;
- 63.Cavalleri B, Volpe G, Arioli V, Lancini G. J Med Chem. 1977;20:1522–1525. doi: 10.1021/jm00221a035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.O’Connor LJ, Cazares-Korner C, Saha J, Evans CNG, Stratford MRL, Hammond EM, Conway SJ. Nature Protocols. 2016;11:781–794. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2016.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.









